MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7093645463

Review of <i>Hell Gap: A Stratified Paleoindian Campsite at the Edge of the Rockies. </i>Edited by Mary Lou Larson, Marcel Kornfeld, and George C. Frison.

2011· article· W7093645463 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2011
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeorge (robot)AmateurExcavationSequence (biology)JuryProjectile point
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every Plains archaeologist has heard of the Hell Gap site. But few could tell you much about it. All that changes with the publication of this needed, dense, thorough collection that chronicles the life and content of this singularly important archaeological site. With 20 papers and 13 appendices, this book takes a monumental step forward in furthering our knowledge of nearly the entire Paleoindian sequence of occupation on the western Plains. Hell Gap is the type site for three Paleoindian point styles: Goshen, Hell Gap, and Frederick, and contains at least six other cultural complexes: Folsom, Midland, Agate Basin, Alberta, Eden/Scottsbluff, and Lusk. All in a stratified and fairly well-dated sequence. There are hints of Clovis, but the jury is still out. Located in eastern Wyoming, the Hell Gap site was discovered when amateur collector 1. Duguid picked up a complete Agate Basin point in 1958 (the first appendix tells his story). Sharing that information led to years of excavation by a virtual "who's who" in the history of Plains archaeology. Previously known by a few short articles and unpublished works, this volume is the first major synthesis of one of the most studied and significant sites in the Plains.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.011

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207